Advertisement

Social Indicators Research

, Volume 105, Issue 1, pp 39–61 | Cite as

Self-Evaluation Processes in Life Satisfaction: Uncovering Measurement Non-Equivalence and Age-Related Differences

  • Heike HeidemeierEmail author
  • Ursula M. Staudinger
Article

Abstract

This study demonstrates how self-evaluation processes explain subgroup differences in ratings of life satisfaction (population heterogeneity). Life domains differ with regard to the constraints they impose on beliefs in internal control. We hypothesized that these differences are linked with cognitive biases in ratings of life satisfaction. In fact, two subgroups of respondents needed to be distinguished, for which life satisfaction scores were non-equivalent measures. Self-evaluation processes also helped to explain age-related differences in life satisfaction. Age was unrelated or positively related to life satisfaction in a subgroup of respondents who perceived comparatively high levels of control over high-constraining life domains such as work, income, and standard of living. However, age yielded a substantial negative relationship with life satisfaction among participants who reported reduced levels of control in these domains. Results from a German representative sample were replicated with data from an online survey.

Keywords

Self-evaluation Cognitive bias Life satisfaction Population heterogeneity Mixed Rasch model 

References

  1. Alicke, M. D. (1985). Global self-evaluation as determined by the desirability and controllability of trait adjectives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1621–1630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrich, D. (1978). A rating scale formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika, 43, 561–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aspinwall, L. G., & Taylor, S. E. (1992). Modeling cognitive adaptation: A longitudinal investigation of the impact of individual differences and coping on college adjustment and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 989–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Best, C. J., Cummins, R. A., & Lo, S. K. (2000). The quality of rural and metropolitan life. Australian Journal of Psychology, 52, 69–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bowling, N., Beehr, T., Wagner, S., & Libkuman, T. (2005). Adaptation-level theory, opponent process theory, and dispositions: An integrated approach to the stability of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1044–1053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brickman, P., & Campbell, D. (1971). Hedonic relativism and planning the good society. In M. Apley (Ed.), Adaptation-level theory: A symposium (pp. 287–302). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  7. Brickman, P., Coates, D., & Janoff-Bolman, R. (1978). Lottery winners and accident victims: Is happiness relative? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 917–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cummins, R. A., & Nistico, H. (2002). Maintaining life satisfaction: The role of positive cognitive bias. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 37–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Diener, E., & Diener, M. (1995). Cross-cultural correlates of life satisfaction and self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 653–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Diener, E., Sandvik, E., & Pavot, W. (1991). Happiness is the frequency, not the intensity, of positive versus negative affect. In F. Strack & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Subjective well-being: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 119–139). Elmsford NY: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  12. Diener, E., & Suh, M. E. (1998). Subjective well-being and age: An international analysis. In K. W. Schaie & M. P. Lawton (Eds.), Annual review of gerontology and geriatrics, vol. 17: Focus on emotion and adult development (pp. 304–324). New York, NY, USA: Springer Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  13. Dunning, D., Meyerowitz, J. A., & Holzberg, A. D. (1989). Ambiguity and self-evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1082–1090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eid, M. (2008). Measuring the immeasurable. In M. Eid & N. R. J. Larsen (Eds.), The science of subjective well-being. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  15. Eid, M., & Rauber, M. (2000). Detecting measurement invariance in organizational surveys. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 16, 20–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fujita, F., & Diener, E. (2005). Life satisfaction set point: Stability and change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 158–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Headey, B., & Wearing, A. (1992). Understanding happiness: A theory of subjective well-being. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire.Google Scholar
  19. Heidemeier, H., & Göritz, A. S. (2010). Using factor mixture models for classification: Individual differences in how work and nonwork life domains contribute to subjective well-being (unpublished document).Google Scholar
  20. Heidemeier, H., & Moser, K. (2009). Self-other agreement in job performance ratings: A meta-analytic test of a process model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 353–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Heller, D., Watson, D., & Ilies, R. (2004). The role of person versus situation in life satisfaction: A critical examination. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 574–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Heller, D., Watson, D., & Ilies, R. (2006). The dynamic process of life satisfaction. Journal of Personality, 74, 1421–1451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Horley, J., & Lavery, J. J. (1995). Subjective well-being and age. Social Indicators Research, 34, 275–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Horn, J., & McArdle, J. (1992). A practical guide and theoretical guide to measurement invariance in aging research. Experimental Aging Research, 3, 117–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kasser, T., & Ahuvia, A. (2002). Materialistic values and well-being in business students. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 137–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Knabe, A., & Raetzel, S. (2007). Quantifying the psychological costs of unemployment: The role of permanent income. SOEPpapers (German Socio-Economic Panel Study, DIW Berlin), 32. Retrieved August 5, 2008 at http://www.diw.de/soeppapers.
  27. Knoop, R. (1989). Locus of control: A work-related variable? Journal of Social Psychology, 129, 101–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kunzmann, U., Little, T. D., & Smith, J. (2000). Is age-related stability of subjective well-being a paradox? Cross-sectional and longitudional evidence from the Berlin Aging Study. Psychology and Aging, 15, 511–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lachman, M. E. (1986). Locus of control in aging research: A case for multidimensional and domain-specific assessment. Psychology and Aging, 1, 34–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lachman, M. E. (2006). Perceived control over aging-related declines: Adaptive beliefs and behaviors. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 282–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lubke, G., & Muthén, B. (2005). Investigating population heterogeneity with factor mixture models. Psychological Methods, 10, 21–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Maij-de Meij, A. M., Kelderman, H., & van der Flier, H. (2008). Fitting a mixture item response theory model to personality questionnaire data: Characterizing latent classes and investigating possibilities for improving prediction. Applied Psychological Measurement, 32, 611–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Masters, G. (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47, 149–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McFarlin, D. B., & Blascovitch, J. (1981). Effects of self-esteem and performance on future affective preferences and cognitive expectations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 521–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mislevy, R. J., & Velherst, N. (1990). Modeling item responses when different subjects employ different solution strategies. Psychometrika, 55, 195–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Muthén, B., & Shedden, K. (1999). Finite mixture modeling with mixture outcomes using the EM algorithm. Biometrics, 55, 463–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nehrke, M., Hulicka, I., & Morganti, J. (1980). Age differences in life satisfaction, locus of control, and self-concept. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 11, 25–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Oishi, S. (2006). The concept of life satisfaction across cultures: An IRT analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 411–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Oishi, S., Diener, E. F., Lucas, R. E., & Suh, E. M. (1999). Cross-cultural variations in predictors of life satisfaction: Perspectives from needs and values. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 980–990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Peterson, C., & Stunkard, A. (1989). Personal control and health promotion. Social Science and Medicine, 28, 819–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. R Development Core Team (2009). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria (http://www.R-project.org).
  42. Robinson, M. D., & Ryff, C. D. (1999). The role of self-deception in perceptions of past, present, and future happiness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 595–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rost, J. (1991). A logistic mixture distribution model for polychotomous item responses. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 44, 75/92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rost, J. (1997). Logistic mixture models. In W. van der Linden & R. Hambleton (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory (pp. 449–463). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  45. Ryckman, R., & Malikioski, M. (1975). Relationships between locus of control and chronological age. Psychological Reports, 36, 655–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sawatzky, R., Ratner, P. A., Johnson, J. L., Kopec, J., & Zumbo, B. D. (2009). Sample heterogeneity and the measurement structure of the multidimensional students’ life satisfaction scale. Social Indicators Research, 94, 273–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schwarz, N., & Strack, F. (1999). Reports of subjective well-being: Judgmental processes and their methodological implications. In D. Kahnemann, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology. New York: Russel Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  48. Sedikides, C. (1993). Assessment, enhancement, and verification determinants of the self-evaluation process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 317–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Staudinger, U. M. (2000). Viele Gründe sprechen dagegen und trotzdem fühlen viele Menschen sich wohl: Das Paradox des subjektiven Wohlbefindens. [Many reasons speak against it, nevertheless most people are happy: The paradox of subjective well being]. Psychologische Rundschau, 51, 185–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Staudinger, U. M., Bluck, S., & Herzberg, P. (2003). Looking back and looking ahead: Adult age differences in consistency of diachronous ratings of subjective well-being. Psychology and Aging, 18, 13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Staudinger, U. M., Marsiske, M., & Baltes, P. B. (1995). Resilience and reserve capacity in later adulthood: Potentials and limits of development across the life span. In D. Cicchetti & D. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology (Vol. 2: Risk, disorder, and adaptation (pp. 801–847). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  52. Stock, W., Okun, M., Haring, M., & Witter, R. (1983). Age differences in subjective well-being: A meta-analysis. In R. Light (Ed.), Evaluation studies. review annual (pp. 279–302). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  53. Taylor, S., & Brown, J. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Taylor, S., & Brown, J. (1994). Positive illusions and well-being revisited: Separating fact from fiction. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 21–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Taylor, S. E., Neter, E., & Wayment, H. A. (1995). Self-evaluation processes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1278–1287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. von Davier, M., & Yamamoto, K. (2004). Partially observed mixtures of IRT models: An extension of the generalized partial-credit model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 28, 389–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Warm, T. A. (1989). Weighted likelihood estimation of ability in item response models. Psychometrica, 54, 427–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wheeler, L., & Miyake, K. (1992). Social comparison in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 760–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Williams, M. L., McDaniel, M. A., & Nguyen, N. T. (2006). A meta-analysis of the antecedents and consequences of pay level satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 392–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wolk, S. (1976). Situational constraint as a moderator of the locus of control-adjustment relationship. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 44, 420–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wolk, S., & Kurtz, J. (1975). Positive adjustment and involvement during aging and expectancy for internal control. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 173–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wu, C. H. (2008). Examining the appropriateness of importance weighting of satisfaction score from range-of-affect hypothesis: Hierarchical linear modeling for within-subject data. Social Indicators Research, 86, 101–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zumbo, B. D. (2007). Three generations of differential item functioning (DIF) analyses: Considering where it has been, where it is now, and where it is going. Language Assessment Quarterly, 4, 223–233.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Jacobs University BremenBremenGermany

Personalised recommendations